A house that returns 4x energy usage it consumes must, by definition, have a "break even" point at which it returns more energy than it "cost" to build it. The REAL question should be how many years is that? If it's 30 that's acceptable (I assume these houses will last longer than 30 years). If it's 300 then you have a point worth considering.

Maybe you should. After all: The cost of the house includes the cost of the solar panels. Therefore:

If:

R = the value of Returned from the panels over their finite life (positive number), and

C = the Cost of the panels (positive number), and

H = the cost of the house not including the panels (a positive number), and

T = the total cost of the house, and the panels, and the return from the panels.

T = H + C - R

NoMoreNicksLeft's statement (which I believe to be factually correct) is :

R < C

If so, then:

R < H + C (If the return won't compensate for the panels alone, it won't compensate for the panels and house).

That's not circular logic, it is just very simple math. You can argue that the assertion of NoMoreNicksLeft (that the panels have a finite life-span and consequently are net energy negative and will wear-out before they pay for themselves) is false, but if you grant his premise his reasoning is sound.

how dare they not retroactively change the source of embedded energy in the goods they already own! and since that can't do that they should make no attempt at using renewable energy to sustain what that currently have. they should do nothing! simply continue to consume finite resources because they can always rely on the invisible hand of the market to create energy for them.

It gets worse. This initiative has clearly not solved all the world's energy problems. They should rip those solar panels off now before we are all forced to carry Chairman Mao's red book and eat with chopsticks.

And how much did this cost? Or to put it another way, is this a small designer community for very rich people? Or is it a set of affordable homes that could reasonably be purchased and maintained by a normal family?

Seriously people, the answers to these questions matter. Something must be economically sustainable before it can be ecologically sustainable.

Human behavior is not trapped inside their ecology like the behavior of other creatures. If human behavior were so trapped, then we would still be hunter-gatherers. One of the unique qualities of human behavior is the fact that humans are capable of choosing courses of action that are NOT ecologically sustainable. Indeed, Human History can be quite accurately described as the shifting from one ecologically unsustainable lifestyle to another. A complete list of such examples is too long to be covered in its entirety here. So, I will limit myself to just one representative example: The Romans had a practice whereby they staged gladiatorial combats between slaves and various wild beasts such as lions. As a result, there was an on-going trade in exotic and ferocious animals in the Roman Empire. Several species were driven to the brink of extinction by this trade. The practice was never ecologically sustainable, but it was economically sustainable over a finite time. When one species was hunted to the point of not being available, they simply switched to another species. As this example proves, (and it is by no means an isolated example) it is possible to economically sustain ecologically unsustainable practices. Even a cursory study of history demonstrates that humans will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS choose the present-day economically viable option over the future-optimal ecologically viable course of action. This is because of the rather elementary facts that (1) Humans must eat or die, and that (2) They must survive in the present before survival in the future becomes relevant. I submit to you, that nobody has the power to change these two elementary facts. Because economics unavoidably controls whether people can eat or not, any course of action that humans are to undertake must be economically viable first and foremost or they will simply choose not to undertake it, long-term ecological considerations be damned. Or to more directly answer your question:

economies can exist without ecologies?

Economies exist in the realm of human behavior. Humans ultimately exist inside ecologies, but matters of ecological sustainability usually resolved over a very long time scale (decades or centuries). Human behavior, on the other hand is dominated by a much shorter perspective (food and shelter today). Further, human beings themselves are so biologically, socially, and psychologically adaptable that the alteration or destruction of any particular habitat or ecological niche of their environment is not a significant short-term threat. Consequently, human behavior, and thus human economic behavior, is removed and isolated from long-term ecological constraints.

This removal from the constraints of ecology is not going to change... indeed, the trend is in the opposite direction. As our technology becomes more advanced, we live in ever increasing isolation from the natural ecology of the planet. With advances in biotechnology and farming techniques, ecologies are being made to bend to suit economics not the other way round. This is a trend that goes back at least 9000 years to adoption of agriculture over a hunter-gatherer existence. I don't think this trend is going to stop or even slow down any time soon. I do not believe it is possible to change human nature... at least the concerted efforts of empires, religions, philosophies, laws, doctors, educators, economists, and politicians over the course of all recorded history using every tool and technique known to man has not succeeded in changing human nature in any kind of enduring manner yet. :-} At this stage, I think we should just accept the rules of human behavior and see what we can accomplish inside them rather than continuing to try and make a better human.

human behavior is much more complicated that the binary of food/shelter you present, especially in affluent societies where these needs are often permanently fulfilled from birth. your over simplification of human behaviour, desires and choices reeks of rational choice, cost/benefit, and standard econ 101, that would advocate a do nothing approach to the environmental challenges we face today. you apparently do not accept that humans live within ecological limitations, and this is where i fundamentally disagree with you. when we run out of potable fresh water we cannot simple move on the the next economically viable liquid (we could all just drink coke right?) everything in our biology depends on water, this is an ecological limit, we can not exist without it. i do not accept that there are 'rules' of human behaviour (dan ariely's work 'predictably irrational' comes to mind).

human behavior is much more complicated that the binary of food/shelter you present,

True, but those behavioral complexities are submerged in the larger trends. I am not asserting this from theory, but from observation. Take a look at US politics... the many issues, corruption, values, etc do have an effect on the polls, but a small one. What ultimately decides almost every election? It's The Economy Stupid! American politics is not an outlier in this behavior pattern! You can say that this shouldn't be the case, you can argue that this doesn't have to be the case in affluent societies, but only the willfully blind and/or self-deceptive can argue that it is not the case!

especially in affluent societies where these needs are often permanently fulfilled from birth.

Permanent is too strong a word to use. Better to say these needs are met for long sustained periods. Nethertheless, even in affluent civilizations, humans are never more than 1-3 bad years away from barbarism.

I choose to take that as a compliment even though it is not an accurate analysis of my argument. My argument is not based upon the theoretical disciplines of Reason, Cost/Benefit Analysis, or Economics. As I clearly stated in my prior post it is based upon HISTORY. This is not the way humans are expected to act. It is not the way that humans should act. It is the way they DID ACT over the entire course of their recorded history, on every continent, and in every culture that has advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, with no significant exceptions!!!! (By significant, I mean BOTH more than 10,000 people, and acting for more than 100 years. Anything else is insignificant because it either can't be scaled to large populations or it is insufficiently stable to scale over long periods of time. Either way it represents a failure.)

you apparently do not accept that humans live within ecological limitations, and this is where i fundamentally disagree with you. when we run out of potable fresh water we cannot simple move on the the next economically viable liquid (we could all just drink coke right?) everything in our biology depends on water, this is an ecological limit, we can not exist without it.

No. It is a biological limit. If we were to as you suppose "run out" of potable water, then we would merely end up investing in water purification technology and infrastructure on a larger scale to take previously un-potable water and turn it into potable water. You seem to be laboring under a false presumption: that resources are limited by natural conditions. They aren't; the amount of gold or water or food available is first and foremost limited by human effort and human thought. People MAKE these resources from previously valueless natural products whether that is by boiling stream-water to kill pathogens, or smelting metal from ore, or planting and harvesting crops. So, yes, actually we would move on to another feed-stock of water-bearing liquid, and perhaps with it, another purification technology.

i do not accept that there are 'rules' of human behaviour (dan ariely's work 'predictably irrational' comes to mind).

You seem to think that rules have to make sense... that rules of human behavior govern of constrain human behavior, but that is reversing cause and effect. The rules of human behavior that I am discussing are DESCRIPTIONS of observed trends, NOT CAUSES of those trends. They are rules in much the same way that there are rules of probability. The Normal Distribution does not FORCE the rolls of dice to follow it, it merely describes such random events. Call them "trends" instead of "rules" if that makes you happier... We still can't change them any more than we could change the Normal Distribution. We know this, because we have been trying without notable success for many thousands of years. We can escape ecology, but not history.

If we were to as you suppose "run out" of potable water, then we would merely end up investing in water purification technology and infrastructure on a larger scale to take previously un-potable water and turn it into potable water.

i knew you would go for the magical technology will intervene argument, ayn rand would be proud of such an unflappable devotee.

i knew you would go for the magical technology will intervene argument

It is not an argument that technology will intervene, (and there is never anything magical about technology) but rather that PEOPLE will intervene! If you have run out of potable water, it means only that you need to invest in that resource more. The way we do that in modern times is with technology because that is just the best way to do things.

But, if you like, we can take technology out of the mix by supposing your water scenario happened to a primitive from 3000 years ago. His solution to running out of potable water would still be to more heavily invest in that resource... now he might not do that in a technological manner, but he would still invest time effort and money in water: Perhaps he would raid his neighbors for their source of water, perhaps he would build a cistern to collect and store rain water, perhaps he would dig a well, perhaps he would trade other resources for water, perhaps he'll migrate to a new region where water is still plentiful. Note how most of these are not technological solutions, and all of these solutions were possible for him to have done before he ran out of his previous supply of water. The only thing that stopped him from doing so before, was ECONOMICS: the benefit was not worth the investment as long as water was plentiful without the added risk or costs of these water-acquisition approaches.

ayn rand would be proud of such an unflappable devotee.

The fact that resources are MADE, not found, has been well known and well accepted for a very long time. It is not something that Ayn Rand discovered for herself, or if she did, she was not the only one or the first one to do so. The awesome thing about the truth is that it is apparent to everybody who does not willfully blind themselves to it. Thus, the right answer is often independently derived. If the people who argue against you are all saying the same thing, then perhaps it is because they are all right, not because they are all part of some weird cult of personality.

By point of fact, my response to your water scenario was not inspired by Ayn Rand, but rather by adapting the logic of Peak Oil. One of the basic predictions of Peak Oil is that as low-cost sources of oil are depleated, it becomes economically viable to begin extraction from more marginal sources such as oil-shale.

And if the home costs millions, it doesn't matter because normal people will never be able to afford it even though it would eventually pay for itself some time down the road. It has long been noted that the rich spend less for things than the poor. Literally: A gallon of milk is more expensive when purchased by poor people than a gallon of milk purchased by rich people. In the case of a gallon of milk, this is because rich people have the luxury of being able to shop around and find a good deal; they can go to real grocery stores; they can buy on a convenient and affordable schedule; they can buy using efficient payment options such as debit cards, or checks; when using a line of credit, they can pay it off every month rather than letting the balance sit and accrue interest. Poor people, by contrast, have to walk or use public transit limiting their options. They must buy in amounts they can carry; they must buy during relatively restricted hours; they must rely upon convenience-stores that charge a premium rather than grocery stores. The poor often can't get bank accounts forcing them to rely upon check-cashing stores that charge a premium for access to their own money. Some of these points are specific to the example of a gallon of milk, but the principle is universal: The more money you have, the more efficiently you can use that money. Thus, it is not enough that the houses in such a community pay for themselves eventually. If the initial cost is so outlandishly high, or the time for the investment to pay for itself is so outlandishly long that only the richest of the rich can afford such a home, then such a community represents little more than a stunt... akin to car companies making a concept-car. The car company can afford to put all kinds of wiz-bang gadgets on a concept-car because it will never go into production. That's what I'm asking. Is this German community a stunt (a mere concept-community), or does it have value beyond the mere conceptual, extending into the practical such that it could make a difference in the real world?

I found your question vulgar.

The real world is a vulgar place, full of absolutely inescapable economic military, and political realities. Accept that as a fact, because you can not change it.